Why “Traditional” Methods Don’t Work for Latin or Greek (or any language!) 2nd Language Acquisition

[@polyMATHY_Luke]

To get all the input you need to master any of 40 languages, sign up for LingQ with this link and get 35% off the 12-month plan: www.lingq.com/accounts/new/?next=/accounts/subscription/basic_2018/12/b_12lukeranieri/checkout/&referral=lukeranieri

[@josephmaxwell6259]

I've had to explain this to my school leadership to make some significant changes to our Latin program. The original curriculum was heavy grammar translation using Henle and students were suffering. We've switched to immersive Latin and Lingua Latina. So far, I've seen enormous dividends in focusing on compelling content and making class a "conversation" as much as possible.

[@choreomaniac]

I’m starting the same journey this year! Wish me luck!

[@benedyktjaworski9877]

Generally, for people interested in how language acquisition works - from the cognitive and neurological side, and how multilingual individuals’ brains work - I highly recommend Martin Hilpert’s KZbin channel - he has there lecture series on these things. I very highly recommend his bilingualism series! He talks about ambiguity and how vocabulary *doesn’t map* between languages (so translation is never fully accurate, one really has to make idea → vocab mappings for each language separately to truly use and understand a language). And his lectures on Construction Grammar also provide some good information (both from cognitive experiments, and from observations of what’s grammatical to different groups of speakers) on how language may *actually* work and why some structuralist and transformational ideas do not work. There’s also series on working with text corpora, and much more stuff. It’s great for general linguistics.

[@sethgeorgson7775]

This was my experience in school. I studied Latin, German, Greek, and Hebrew for years, all with a grammar-first approach. I had classmates who seemed to do really well with this approach, but for me I only ever understood the target languages through English. I spent countless hours with vocabulary flash cards and memorizing declensions and conjugations (much of which I've since forgotten). I like the analogy of understanding how an airplane works vs. being able to fly one. I also like to compare it to one of those decoder puzzles, where each word or letter has to be compared to a key to decipher what English word it corresponds to. I bought Luke's "Gospel of John" from his audiobook store and have been listening to and reading the Latin on repeat, and I feel like I'm really starting to mentally attach concepts to the Latin I'm reading, rather than just pausing to translate each word and phrase into English. So far, so good! I'm also trying to teach my kids a little Latin, and I've been using stories from "Ecce Romani" (a book I obtained for free). We're skipping most of the grammar parts of the lessons and just focusing on reading, re-reading, and understanding the simple stories.

[@notspacekeeper]

If you think about it, kids don't learn grammar in terms of how the different pieces are labelled and organized in a sentence. They learn how to speak by listening and copying and trying a lot, and then knowing what sounds right and what sounds wrong. Most people speaking languages like Polish or Russian probably couldn't tell you what the genitive case is and what it does, but they know exactly where and how to use it, including specific idiomatic cases where it doesn't do what it should grammatically, but does something else. Because they've heard it and they know it sounds right. But we also don't start kids off with Charles Dickens, we start them off with very, very simple stories that teach things like then, now, later, maybe and so on. Your approach of reading, failing, and reading again is how a girl I went out with years ago learned to read in 4-5 languages. She'd sit with a dictionary and a book she couldn't read and just do it. Some friends of mine would watch English stuff with English subtitles on to help learn English. One French girl I loved doing this with South Park, which was too funny.

[@cellospot]

I spent about 15 years trying to study Spanish on my own off and on, and did learn a few things... was even getting to the point of being able to have short easy conversations. Then I spent some time in a Greek community here in the US, and in a year ensconced in this community, I learned as much Greek as I had learned Spanish over 15 years. It was amazing. During this year, I spent around 4 hours a week studying Greek, but the rest of the time I was hearing it around me, and attempting to speak it. Right before I left that community, I was able to understand a full conversation and respond to it as best I could. Studying from books is great and valuable, but the input immersion is the best!

[@RogerRamos1993]

IMO, in the end, the number of hours you out into something os what matters. As for languages, you need to know around 5 thousand words to be able to understand most of what is spoken a language and some 80% of written language. Ultimately, what matters is that you reach that vocabulary and whatever the method you use, you'll only be able to learn 5 thousand words after many months, best case scenario. And one thing is understanding. Producing language takes more effort.

[@cito2820]

I like mixing the two, based on personal experience. I find that studying grammar for like 10-15 minutes for every hour of comprehensible input makes it so my input feels a lot more meaningful, but also enjoyable, as I have the grammar reinforced. That’s just me though! I’ve found it super helpful for French and Latin so far.

[@gangiskon]

me too, I find that those little grammar studies makes the input I'm having get more and more comprehensible and so I agree with your ratio, works great for me :)

[@ridleyroid9060]

How do you study comprehensible input? I'm trying to learn Japanese and I'm not really getting exactly how that works.

[@АклызМелкенды]

@@ridleyroid9060 you start small - with what's easy to understand. Maybe even designed for children. You focus not on "remembering" things, but on "getting them" - hence comprehensible. Gradually extending your sources, getting new grammar as needed, but without forcing yourself to do tons of grammar exercises.

[@cito2820]

@@ridleyroid9060 Honestly, it's deceptively simple. When watching a simple video, and someone holds up a pen and says "calamus est" and you can’t even break up the words, but somehow you still understand that it means "It is a pen," that is what qualifies as 'comprehensible input.' As long as what you are watching kinda makes sense, even if you couldn't say what every word is and what all the grammar is, you have begun to use comprehensible input, and, in the opinions of steven krashen, begun to acquire the language. Think of it as just understanding/following what is going on rather than knowing every word.

[@lazydictionary]

You agree with Luke then - grammar study is a supplement to CI.

[@matthew_scarbrough]

You know, you touch on something very good at the start of this when responding to the guy who asks why would you waste time with modern graded readers instead of historical literature. While I could rant about how trying to do that made me hate Old English because I would sit at my desk for 3 hours, ruin my whole day, and not even get a whole stanza through of like Wanderer or something (and that is with me being like A2 in German at the time), I won't. I used to have the same mindset about watching TV and movies and reading books. So I spent most of my whole teens in high school not doing that. I didn't even watch anime. And then in my early twenties, I was going through a rough spot and I watched some stuff, and then it clicked, and I got it. And I realised that not everything has to be work-work all the time. When you do other stuff, you broaden your horizons. And when you approach a language slowly through children's books and graded readers or watching a dubbed TV show you already know by heart for passive input, it lets you have fun, and learn at a steady pace so that when you do have to do something strenuous or whatever, that is the exception, not the norm. And you have to have a balance. It can't all be fun and it can't all be overly serious. That's why relatoinships fail. They either are overly non-serious or overly too-serious. C.S. Lewis has a great quote, "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."

[@beatoriche7301]

As a fellow Latinist (and as a learner of Ancient Greek), I would like to laud your wonderful videos once again! I love your deep-dives into ancient language phonology and pedagogy, and I've even used some of your Latin videos in tutoring. I've sent your videos to many of my friends and colleagues because I feel they're just so accessible and well-presented, and I'll certainly send this one out as well in the hopes that it might help ease some reservations towards input-based approaches, which, in my experience, is something a lot of classicists at my university are reluctant to embrace because it's so different from how they learned Latin and Ancient Greek. Something I'd be interested to get your perspective on, though, is translating the other way - that which universities in the English-speaking world like to label _prose composition exercises._ I learned a lot from the prose composition courses my study program put me through, and it's always come quite naturally to me, but I can't help but feel like that is, in significant part, because I was incorporating active Latin into my study routine from the early days of my Latin studies in college. The way I approached them and made them work for me was by focusing on the example sentences, which were often simple sentences designed to elucidate a certain grammatical point and/or teach vocabulary, and skipped the parts that were super heavy on the language-of-instruction side like vocabulary lists or lengthy grammar explanations. It also certainly helped that I had access to my favorite grammar of the Latin language, a German one written by Burkard and Schauer (my two main gripes with it are that they don't use macrons and that they only base their analysis on Cicero and Caesar, even going so far as to call different language usage _unclassical,_ which gives my linguist arm immense goosebumps; however, their work is good enough overall that I still think it's probably the best reference grammar out there by virtue of being both in-depth and accessible. Not only do they use a ton of example sentences that are much more illustrative than the accompanying explanations in German, but they also specifically take it upon themselves to question some elements of the scholastic tradition that don't necessarily represent how the Latin language is actually used even just in the works of those two authors, and in that sense, they actually are pretty descriptive, albeit operating off the questionable assumption that Caesar and Cicero are the only sources of good Latin. My favorite chapter by far is their chapter on the Cōnsecūtiō Temporum, where they discuss how the use of subjunctive tenses in subordinate clauses is far less rigid and strict than textbooks would like to have you believe and note that psychological factors like the _function_ of, say, the perfect subjunctive as describing an action regarded as completed from the perspective of the present are much more important than a supposed ironclad rule about subjunctive tenses in subordinate clauses.). I also know, however, that prose composition is very difficult for the vast majority of college-level Latin students, which I do think is largely an outgrowth of the grammar-translation approach de-emphasizing the original language and treating it as this alien thing that you can only ever regard from the distance. I think it's very important to teach active Latin, and prose composition classes are the only real point in most people's university education at which that is done, which is why, as much as most students initially struggle with prose composition, once they're done with their requirements in this area, they often feel like these courses really helped them build knowledge of the language, but I do think they could benefit from a lesser emphasis on, well, translation and a greater one on actual _composition_ and free-form writing. I know I'm young, and I have no idea if I'll be able to land a contract in academia eventually, but it is a little bit of a dream of mine to revolutionize the way in which prose composition is taught even at just one university and turn these courses into low-pressure classes (taught in Latin to the extent possible - even simple classroom phrases can help familiarize the language) meant to slowly undo the damage grammar-translation has inflicted on many Latin students even at the college level, ease them into actively using the language and gaining an intuitive command of the grammar through simple sentences, and cultivate a healthier relationship with the Latin language as not alien, but deeply familiar, which I can certainly say from experience goes a long way in improving reading proficiency. And as someone who really enjoys writing poetry, I feel like a verse composition class for more advanced learners could also be a lot of fun. In the end, courses focused on using the language also have a lot of potential in introducing the Latin students of today (which is to say, the Latin teachers of tomorrow) to methods centered around active Latin and comprehensible input in a more practical way - if they hear _vōs salvēre jubeō_ several times a week for part of their college days, they'll probably be more open to teaching the accusative plus infinitive in a similar way and gain a more direct understanding of what it does in Latin. It's why I think a lot about ways to make composition courses a more appealing and less dry part of the college Latin experience. I apologize for the long diatribe, but I'd be interested to hear what you think of the matter and some of the considerations I've laid out. EDIT: So, I realized after writing this comment that I hadn't actually watched the last portion of the video, which touches on very similar questions, haha ... I'm still interested in getting your thoughts on the matter I raised specifically, but I also did want to say that I completely agree with you that composing a diary is a really good exercise (as is writing text messages in Latin at a slightly more advanced level, which I sometimes do with friends). If I do teach a prose composition course in the future, I intend to assign writing a diary as a mandatory component in place of any exams that would ordinarily be scheduled, with grading based on consistency rather than total number of errors or something like that (I think grading is kinda BS to begin with, but that's a story for another day, and I don't see grading disappearing from the college landscape in the foreseeable future).

[@theycallmefreedom-z4x]

"...but I do think they could benefit from a lesser emphasis on, well, translation and a greater one on actual composition and free-form writing.,," I am not young. I've been teaching Greek (ancient and modern) and Latin for more than 40 years and what you're saying is absolutely true in my experience. Although, eventually, the way we learn a language depends on our personal learning style and background, prose writing is the only way to learn the target language in depth. Therefore, I don't really use textbooks, I never liked them anyway, and once I understand my learners, I tailor the grammar information to them. Prose and even verse writing, though, is mandatory for all my students. Not only because it's effective for them, but also because it provides me the most accurate feedback on their needs and progress.

[@beatoriche7301]

@@theycallmefreedom-z4x Oh wow - thank you for sharing your experience! Your words as someone very experienced in teaching both Latin and Greek mean a lot to me. Have a lovely day!

[@anthonydesportes9968]

What you are saying at 6:00 is spot on. I grew up in France and the learning of English is much slower, and much less comprehensive, because of the over-present dubbing.

One of the criticisms you mentioned that people have against graded readers is that you spend a lot of time reading about fictional characters created specifically for those readers like Iulius and Dikaiopolis rather than actual works of ancient literature. That made me wonder if it might be possible to make, or if there might be a market for, graded readers that are direct adaptations of ancient literature. I'm currently reading through the "Aeneis solutis versibus" section of Roma Aeterna, and I'm enjoying it immensely. I don't feel confident enough to jump into the unedited text of Vergil's original poem with enough fluency yet, but I still feel as though I'm engaging with the story in Latin in a way that I wasn't when I was just methodically translating passages of Vergil into English in my college Latin class. What if there were graded readers that allowed students to have that sort of authentic-feeling engagement with a text from the very beginning? A Familia Romana-style adaptation of the Aeneid could begin with a chapter establishing the geographical settings relevant to the story: "Latium in Italia est. Troia in Asia est. Karthago in Africa est..." In Chapter 2 we start introducing the characters: "Aeneas vir Troianus est. Creusa femina Troiana est. Ascanius puer Troianus est..." Obviously the early chapters with their limited grammar and vocabulary wouldn't do any sort of justice to the story, but that's all the more motivation for students to read the original when they're ready. Would this sort of text feel like less of a "waste of time" to those with this criticism? I don't know. Just a thought.

[@TTKDMS]

So... Wheelock's Latin basically?

[@AngryCenturion576]

I’ve been doing the input method with Lingua Latina (inspired by your video recommending it) and it’s great. It’s not just a great way to learn, it’s also really fun to start out already reading the language even before you’ve gone through any formal training/grammar learning. Super rewarding

[@troelspeterroland6998]

Even with a background partly in linguistics I really like the process of just starting to give yourself input in a foreign language that is not too distant from your own and then gradually figuring it out from the context. Although I have only used the method for written input and for passive understanding, I can now read Faroese and two North Frisian dialects. If I were to learn to use the languages for speaking, I would of course supply with a deeper dive into grammar to speed up the process but it's so nice to find the balance where you have the right measure of both.

[@LuciusClevelandensis]

I have an MATESOL, and I know you're right. Comprehensible input is everything. Excellent explanation. Bravo.

[@mike-lx8tp]

LingQ is great for my Italian. I just started Latin with the book Latin by the Natural Method and its great resource.

[@lynnschofieldolf]

Question: How did you become fluent in Latin? Do you have a video somewhere explaining your own Latin journey? I am a homeschooler learning Latin with my children, and since I have a lot of them who move through various ages and levels, I have been learning Latin for over a decade. I started with what I now know is less effective--the grammar-translation Forms Series by Memoria Press, which vehemently argues against what you say in this video. We switched to LLPSI Familia Romana a year ago and reading fluency exploded, as well as enjoyment. But I wonder--can one learn complex grammar just through comprehensible input? Especially when trying to compose in the language? I went into LLPSI already having memorized all the grammar paradigms and many, many rules, as Memoria Press has the students recite forms and rules in choro every day. So I understand a lot of Latin grammar. Because of this, it is hard for me to know whether learning Latin through comprehensible input, or the natural method a la Orberg, is enough to help people produce in speech and writing correct Latin in complex constructions. I already knew so much grammar going in, including verbals and subjunctive in independent and dependent clauses, etc. and could recognize on sight the characteristics of an inflected word by its form. Would a person with zero grammar exposure be able to learn all that from Orberg alone? I also wonder how to avoid translating in my head. In the early chapters of LLPSI FR, I don't need to translate explicitly, but the English meaning is there with the Latin--Roma in Italia est ... I know what it means, but the English is also there in my mind. Impossible to keep it out--it is so ingrained in me being my native language (the same goes for Spanish ... I used to be relatively fluent and could hold conversations about complex topics such as what Catholics believe ... but English was always in my mind with the Spanish. I learned Spanish in high school the "traditional" grammar first/memorize vocab lists way in the 1990s, but we also watched Destinos; my college Spanish courses were all conducted in Spanish, in which we read Spanish literature and wrote essays in Spanish. But I was translating mentally that whole time, thinking things like, How would I express this idea in Spanish?) When LLPSI FR becomes complex in the later chapters, I am not really understanding it in the first reading without translating mentally and working it out like a puzzle. After I do that, I can then understand it on a second and subsequent reading. I find the Companion by Neumann very, very helpful--because I do find an explanation of grammar necessary in understanding the text. Having said that, I picked up Richie's Fabulae Faciles and need very few of the grammar notes and know most of the core vocab. After looking up unknown words in the per-story glosses when context wasn't enough, I would then re-read the stories and understand them. But I feel like I am still translating mentally, or at least English is present with the Latin. So I would appreciate hearing from people who to read Latin without translating, and who learned complex grammar without learning it in your native language. How do you do that? Thanks.

[@narsilify]

Throughout the video Luke mentions Italy and Italian quite often. This surely is because Luke's Italian is amazing and he has been living in Italy for a while, but I think it mostly is because he got a good understanding of how bad our education system really is, especially when it comes to language. Luke is completely right about acquisition: it takes time, it takes a lot of effort, bit it is the only way to be able to speak a language. Also, I am really happy that Luke pointed out how "the traditional method" is everything but traditional! It just is a modern monster that must be slayed as soon as possible. Good job Luke! I hope a lot of Italian teacher watch your video! Un caro saluto da un italiano a Canton!

[@ridleyroid9060]

I have to say it is disheartening as someone trying to learn Japanese now, and the information as to what to even do to learn it is so numerous and conflicting it hurts my brain. I'm ok with it taking time, that's normal, but where do I put that time? It's just confusing as heck.

[@jimbo2195]

I am in my 2nd semester of Latin using a web textbook/graphic novel called Suburani. The grammar lessons always come AFTER the specific grammar point has been used in 2 or 3 short stories. Its been highly effective and usually when the professor assigns grammar work we have to do... literally nothing because we already acquired most of it.

[@giovannigio6217]

Ciao! sono un linguista focalizzato in lingue moderne, questo è stato un ottimo video sul processo di apprendimento di una nuova lingua. Sin da quando ho visto il tuo video del 2020 sull’”extensive reading” sono diventato promotore del metodo che ho rinominato “esperienziale” perché ci forza ad usare la lingua ed interagire con essa attivamente anziché parlare di essa tramite regole grammaticali. Trovo lampante l’esempio che hai fatto sulla differenza tra leggere il manuale di volo di un aereo ed effettivamente pilotarlo. Limitandosi a leggere il manuale di volo non è possibile imparare a volare. Mi piacerebbe in futuro imparare il greco antico, evitando però il metodo grammaticale. Ho fatto un tentativo in passato ma non avendo avuto nessuno che mi dasse degli input non sono andato lontano. Ho trovato una marcata mancanza di contenuti, per esempio ogni libro non ti dice nemmeno come dire “ciao” in greco antico. Qualunque libro di testo su una lingua moderna avrebbe questo in prima pagina. Se potessi mandarmi un link ad una guida su come iniziare con la lingua sarebbe fantastico. Non sono stato in grado di vedere molti dei tuoi video per via di limitazioni di tempo quindi non sono riuscito a costruire un metodo strutturato su come iniziare. La mancanza di contenuti esperienziali non ha certo aiutato. Sono aperto a qualunque suggerimento che possa aiutarmi a definire un piano strutturato. È un piacere parlare con qualcuno che mette così tanta passione e dà ispirazione nell’apprendimento delle lingue!

[@zino4030]

Two videos in three days!! Btw I really like these long 1-hour rants about a topic.

[@majddarc7292]

About comment #3: part of the 'input method' is tolerance to ambiguity. So it wouldn't really matter whether you think it is a wolf or a fox that particular text is talking about, because you have confidence that with enough input, you will disambiguate the words fox and wolf. And in cases where that still does not happen (for example liberty vs freedom), you can still approximate what the writer is trying to convey.

[@amrlynch]

I liked your comparison with learning to fly a plane. Below is a quote from Wilbur Wright himself, from the Wright Brothers' own book "The Early History of the Airplane": "There are two ways of learning how to ride a fractious horse: one is to get on him and learn by actual practice how each motion and trick may be best met; the other is to sit on a fence and watch the beast awhile, and then retire to the house and at leisure figure out the best way of overcoming his jumps and kicks. The latter system is the safest; but the former, on the whole, turns out the larger proportion of good riders. It is very much the same in learning to ride a flying machine; if you are looking for perfect safety you will do well to sit on a fence and watch the birds; but if you really wish to learn you must mount a machine and become acquainted with its tricks by actual trial." That being said, I agree with some of the other comments here. Learning grammar itself CAN be very useful to speed up your language learning when used in addition to consuming lots and lots of comprehensible input. To extend the flying metaphor--what set the Wright brothers apart was not only their hours of practice controlling their machines as kites and gliders, but also their rigorous laboratory wind-tunnel tests which gave them a better theoretical understanding of aerodynamics than any of their contemporaries.

[@Devisenhandeln]

Thanks for your statement! I just want to share my opionion on that. First of all, I learned both languages "the hard" way i.e. the mere grammatical approach in a very short period of time (1 1/2 years). At the end we were ready to read and translate a fully unknown text of Cicero and Plato, although I would say that I was far away from reading and understanding those texts "fluently". So I can't really evaluate if I had been better or quicker with another learning method. All I know is that I am the type of "group learner", so I love the interaction with a teacher and other pupils and I memorize way better and easier new things in interaction within a group discussion than sitting alone in my bedroom with a book. My feeling is that I would have given up somewhere in the middle without the help of a teacher or some grammatical explanations. So personally I would not condem the mere grammatical approach, but as soon I started reading more texts on my own next to the class, starting with the easier fabulae of Aesop etc. and adding familia romana (which is actually a bit too easy), my proficency in those languages skyrocketed. What helped me a lot was first recording the german sentence on my smartphone and then speaking the translated sentence (taken from a bilingual book/Reclam). I would then hear that again and again on my daily routine (workout/dishes/going for a walk etc.) So for all newbies I would recommend to combine both approches but start reading easy texts such as LLPSI and Logos as soon as possible in accordance with your teacher and add some acoustical exercises and record yourself while reading.

[@C_B_Hubbs]

At 8:00 I thought for sure I was about to hear Luke talk about the Ancient Language Institute as that is the common sponsor, but I was delightfully surprised by LingQ, which actually is maybe a bit more fitting of a sponsor than ALI for this video about general language learning (ancient or modern).

[@YeshuaIsTheTruth]

I've noticed that when I keep up with the Torah portion (or at least try to) my spoken Hebrew is a lot better than when I just go to class and do my homework. Its amazing how necessary actually using the language is.

[@ryankemp3320]

I would agree with much of this, but still think the issue with comprehensible input comes with making the leap to particular genres/subjects of material where there are few ways to make the material comprehensive without either (in my view) exhausting use of the dictionary or the use of translations. I've read Lingua Latina, most graded readers etc. and shifting to the likes of Augustine or medieval hagiography always proves a challenge. With my study of modern languages, combo of audiobooks and (self-created) interlinear translations (thousands of hours worth of material) has taught me reading fluency, but left a huge gap in terms of active production and speaking. At least so far, I do find that language is learning is one of those areas where skills are not transferable (i.e. to speak well, you just have to speak a huge amount; to read well, you just have to read a huge amount etc.).

[@beatoriche7301]

Let me just say that it's totally normal for there to be a gap between what you can _read_ and what you can _write,_ and between what you can _say_ versus what you can understand when _listening._ This is the case even in your first language - with some acclimation, you can comfortably understand texts that are a few centuries old, but that doesn't mean you can necessarily _replicate_ the style of these authors in your own writing. Doing so does require some level of effort dedicated to writing specifically, but these two skill sets are not as divorced from one another as you may think; of course, you can only write what you understand in reading, but on the flipside, you can also much more comfortably understand words or grammatical constructions if you yourself use them on a routine basis. With regards to your Latin studies, let me just say that it is normal for original texts to be a bit difficult to get into initially - this is actually a well-known phenomenon in Latin language teaching circles, and unfortunately, there aren't yet as many materials designed to address it as there should be. Ørberg himself actually created helpful editions of some original texts specifically designed to help intermediate students who have acquired the basics of the language, and people (including yours truly) continue to work on editions of original texts that are palatable for students getting into authentic texts, wherever their interests may lie. There aren't enough of those materials yet, though; no arguments there.

[@mdittmar1315]

I agree with this. The graded readers with their highly simplified selections do indeed provide some knowledge of the grammar and some vocabulary via direct exposure, pictures, etc ....but it is a huge leap from this to an actual ancient author....where one has to contend with specialized vocabulary, odd constructions and idioms, etc. Here it does seem useful to have access to a grammar and a dictionary. Ideally you would get it from context but that is often a stretch.

[@AyanAcademy]

I think language learning theory is a double bind, if not treated wisely psychologically as for many it could become the reason why you end up not studying your target language(s). Too much focus on finding the so-called best way for learning a language could just be a coping mechanism getting rid of the anxiety of the unknown. The path is made by walking, it is not found. Really the best way of learning a language is first of all studying it! I think people often fail because they are not accustomed to any form of self-learning, hence is prefered "immersion" rather than "intented comprehensible initial exposure," which is likely to be the most critical phase. Once you get through it and are finally partially able to consume content in your target language, that is exactly when the 5 principles of comprehensible input theory take place, that is when you are in the language. So I believe that the teachers/instructors/writers' role is to make that initial phase alike to the second phase I depicted above. How can we make the student live in the language, annihilate that distance between the learner and that-which-is-being-learned, until just above that threshold where the learner can sail by himself. The books like Familia Romana are good to the extent they manage to do it. The initial point I was trying to make is similar to that celebrated Buddhist parable of the poisoned arrow. Upon being asked 14 unanswerable metaphysical questions, Gautama speaks: "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."

[@concernedcitizen6313]

I absolutely agree and can attest based on experience that a communicative/immersive learning experience is far better for fluency and long-term memory of a language than simply learning grammatical forms and keeping a dictionary with you while exploring media or even a country in which that language is spoken. I have had both experiences, the immersive method with French and the grammatical method with German, and there's no question which language I'm still better at, even though it's been almost 20 years since I studied either one to any serious degree, and that's French. I took an accelerated course in first-year French in college (and by accelerated, I just mean that FR 101-103 were condensed into two terms, 150-151, with longer class-times), and while the first hour of the first day was spent in English, discussing the expectations of the course, etc., after that first hour, and from that day forward, it was all French, all the time. My teacher started off by talking to use like we were children, getting use to interact with items in the class by using French commands, which we would repeat of course, and then, little by little, expanding the depth of language use until we were literally studying the grammar of French in French itself. It was an amazing course, as were the 200-level courses I took the following year. To this day, while my French is rusty, I can still understand it pretty well, and while my production isn't as good as my comprehension, I can still remember a lot of the genders of nouns not as much by systemic rules but because I remember how I used to say them and hear them. There should be no doubt that immersion and communication are the best options, and when you can't talk to people, learning to read texts with as natural an approach to the language as possible is the next best option.

[@Belcampo1815]

most people confuse understanding the grammar of a language with reading books or grammar explanations. In fact, the so-called "natural method" teaches grammar and vocabulary at the same time and in context, as Orberg demonstrates in LLPSI when he explains the fourth declension: "In Germāniā et in Britanniā sunt magnī exercitūs Rōmānī quī contrā exercitus hostium pugnant. Mīlitēs et ducēs exercituum Rōmānōrum ab hostibus metuuntur. In Hispāniā et in Galliā nōn multī sunt mīlitēs Rōmānī, nam Hispānī et Gallī, quī eās prōvinciās incolunt, iam exercitibus nostris pārent. In exercitibus Rō­ mānīs etiam Hispānī et Gallī multī mīlitant, quī et alia arma et arcūs sagittāsque ferunt." So I don't understand why many people think that grammar is a separate area from the language they want to learn. On the other hand, the translation method pretends to teach a language as if it were algebra or geometry when they are totally different things, besides they fragment the structure of the language in a ridiculous way, for example they teach imperatives at the end of the textbooks, when it is probably the most used in spoken communication.

[@stephm4047]

I totally agree with that view. In France I studied English with comprehensive input and I also decided to watch all american or british TV series/movies in their original versions with english subtitles, and I became quite fluent. But I studied Latin for six years, by learning grammar and then how to translate texts: I feel I kind of wasted my time, Ok I can say that I translated Seneca or Lucretius' De Rerum Natura. And as French intellectuals love pedantry, we are made to learn tons of Latin quotations so we can thus imitate Montaigne, but I never managed to read anything fluently, without even considering speaking. The whole concept of dead languages is misleading because it tends to imply that they should be taught in a different manner.

[@ryam4632]

I think that grammar can make one a good user of a language after some knowledge of the language was assimilated in a less analytic way. For example, if one is an author, grammar can be of great help in evaluating whether a complex idea is communicated well, and if not, why not. Suppose you have a conditional clause of the relative kind. If you're trained in grammar, you have the concept of an antecedent, and so you can use it to analyze what went wrong in the construction of your intricate compound sentence. Ayn Rand recommends asking what the subject and the predicate of your sentence are when you edit a piece of writing. This is yet another simpler example of the usefulness of grammar: it makes implicit knowledge explicit, or rather - explicable in those times when you need to be more careful in using the language. I studied the latin paradigms using a grammar translation mathod and then went into extensive reading - and it helped a lot. In Greek, I find it actually impossible to memorize to paradigms in advance. I try to pick them up from reading by occasionally asking what's that verb form or what's that particle etc. I suppose that the right kind of way of integrating grammar and comprehensible input is to think of it as a spiral: reading, studying grammar, going back to reading, going back to grammar a second time and so on ad infinitum (or, rather, mortem). I agree, therefore, with the comprehensible input approach and I think that the objections mentioned in the video are rationalistic, pedantic, and detached from evidence, as states in the video; and yet, I also think it is helpful to study and use grammar with comprehensible input. One needs to use the concepts and order of grammar not to learn the language deductively, but to make it easier to get it through induction by actually reading plenty of texts of increasing difficulty.

[@jeremiahreilly9739]

Luke, I love your videos and admire the quality of the content. While agreeing in the main with your thesis in this video, I fear you make a small mistake which many KZbin Language Learners make: namely, saying that there is the ONE way to learn a language. I took a course in how to be a ski instructor and I was taught 12 ways to teach students how to change direction with the following advice: "Teach all 12 methods. The students will find the method which works for them." Comprehensible input is what language is all about because when you are fluent in a language, the language is comprehensible. I think there is a role for grammar, drills, memorisation, reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Can you function at a high level in L2 or L3 without knowing grammar? Absolutely. Would knowing grammar improve your ability? Probably. When I learn a new language, I find it helpful to do a minimal grammar introduction, learn by heart a few dozen essential phrases (Dov'è il bagno?), drill some vocab-all of which accelerate my learning. Bene.

[@polyMATHY_Luke]

Hi Jeremiah, thanks for the comment. Given how many different methods for language learning I have espoused on this channel, including a few in this video, it would be pretty silly of me to say that there could only be one way to learn language. Fortunately I didn’t say anything of the kind - I did however say there is only one way to *acquire* language, and that is via comprehensible input, because that is the definition of acquisition. But what Krashen calls “learning,” or what we might call various methods in pedagogy, may be of help to eventual acquisition and proficiency.

[@jeremiahreilly9739]

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. Bene. @@polyMATHY_Luke

[@gregcampwriter]

In my experience, language classes or books that present a set of phrases that I'm supposed to memorize without any discussion about the etymologies of the words, the way that grammar works, and the means by which the words work together doesn't help me. I make my quickest progress when I get a rule of grammar, a set of words with detailed definitions, and sentences from native use of that language that employ the first two.

[@NotMeButAnother]

When I learned Latin at school back in the early to mid 2000s, while our methods were focused on grammar, especially the early phases definitely had elements of comprehensible input. Our textbooks had very simple introductory texts that had been written as teaching materials - they weren't dissimilar to Familia Romana in that way. Now, we also started out with our first declinations and conjugations and we barely did any text production in Latin beyond greeting our teachers (which was certainly a shame), but nobody tried to make us read originals until we had more than a year of basic training in Latin with materials that had been designed to be comprehensible for our relative level of proficiency. My main point of criticism is that we only ever worked from Latin into our language and were almost never encouraged to work in Latin itself, i.e. speak, write or think in Latin.

[@andreascarl9636]

I taught myself Ancient Greek (no prior experience with Latin) by using the traditional method: school textbook, memorizing the paradigms, doing the exercises, reading the text snippets over and over. I wasn’t quite ready to read Plato, but I was lucky that I could sit in a University Plato course for a semester as a guest and after that it was happy reading. Plato. Xenophon. A little Herodotus later. Still struggling with Homer and Sophocles, but will get there eventually, I hope…. Am in a little hiatus now, got fascinated by Sanskrit, which is like Ancient Greek on steroids…. Will see where it takes me. - but yes, my advice is to start reading original literature as soon as possible and feasible. Good luck on this most fascinating journey!

[@luisgreengrass]

Fantastic video! 👏🏼 I'd love to read some more about how languages were thought before this "traditional method" was developed...do you have some bibliography you could recommend??

[@richeefswitchee]

I’m curious on your take in response to what J. Richard Andrews writes in his Introduction to Classical Nahuatl, where he advocates for a mostly grammar-based approach, saying: “This grammar is also unusual in its insistence on an unabashedly grammatical presentation. I have deemed this necessary since Nahuatl is so foreign to English, Spanish, and other Indo-European languages. Grammatical analysis and explanation seem the only way to block, or at least temper, the urge to misconceive the foreign language from the entirely falsifying perspective of the student's own language.”

[@NameTaken_86]

Thank you for making this video and supporting my suspicions of my own struggle. My situation is that I’m a self learner and when I read LLPSI I’m encumbered with doubt that I’m not fully understanding so I stop. I also found memorizing grammar rules and translating sets a bad precedent given the rule of primary. When I read Cicero though my mind has a strong intuition as though my understanding it is just around the bend if only Cicero himself could speak to me.

[@DavidAmster]

Maximas gratias tibi! Pellicula valde utilis et magni momenti!

[@polyMATHY_Luke]

Grātiās, Dāvīd!

[@sebastianschmidt3869]

Before "Grammar-Translation" became the norm there were approaches to teach Latin and Greek with interlinear or parallel translations, so you could read authentic texts from day one (people like John Locke, Comenius and James Hamilton promoted that approach).

[@DerFischStinktVomKopfe]

The thing is... It's easy to teach good students, it's hard to teach bad students. For bad students only massive input gets the job done, the good learners can do whatever and it'll work out given time.

[@internetguru4737]

Hey Luke! I thought of something. Now when text to video Ai is getting better, do you think it’s possible to create a playlist on your channel of comprehensible input videos set in the Roman Empire, featuring the most common Latin words based upon a frequency word list? The first video is about "Et". The second "In" Third "Est" Etc, to many thousands of words?

[@YnEoS10]

why would you make a whole video for one word? Comprehensible Input videos usually cover a number of basics words.

[@ondrejvasak1054]

I think that for anyone who aquired a 2nd language throughout their life without trying to learn it and also tried to deliberately learn a language by studying it must be clear that comprehensible input is the better way of acquiring a language. But I think learning grammar is still beneficial to do if you use it as a supplementary method and not overrely on it. This might be different for everyone on individual level, but I am not sure if I agree with the sentiment that it can actually be hindering you. I mean when you use the word "can", you can say almost anything and still it will be factually true, but if the question is whether it will actually hinder most people, I don't think it will. But there is another issue that you didn't tuch on. What do you think about the benefits of trying to speak the language right from the start. Traditionally people will tell you that you need to try to speak for yourself as early as possible, but lately there were also voices saying it is better to wait until you have enough comprehension to be able to express yourself a little bit (supposedly trying to speak early might cause bad habbits for language acquisition and especially for pronounciation). Personally I tend to favour the latter approach. My mom told me that even when I was little, I refused to speak to people for a long time and then I suddenly started to form complete sentences. This makes me think that this might be the more natural way for me.

[@jmatt56]

Really enjoyed this video. I learned Polish by immersion and didactic as an adult. I also learned Latin as an adult (in Polish). I relearned German by didactic in high school. My primary language is English. My experience is that if you learn to communicate verbally in a language with some degree of fluency you also are able to communicate written language equally effective.

[@stricklst]

There is no better comprehensible input than a word in the learners language. The JACT book and Geoffrey Steadman’s books are great examples of this.

[@pooroldnostradamus]

One advantage of learning _about_ a language is that you can immediately dive into an interesting system, so it keeps you engaged. You analyse the details, structure of the language, some basic etymologies, compare it with more familiar languages etc. And in the meantime, you are inevitably learning the language as well. On the other hand, comprehensive material in a language has to start with something simplistic and fairly dull, as you lack the skills for more engaging topics.

[@beatoriche7301]

I don't disagree with that - but I also don't think comprehensible material has to be boring, and you can absolutely also devote some time to chatting _about_ the language or some cultural aspects during class if the students are interested. It doesn't directly help you acquire the language, but it can help with learner motivation. Plus, stuff like etymology or connections to familiar languages is actually really helpful in embedding vocabulary within your mental network if you are so inclined, so even the most die-hard defender of comprehensible input would not object to their place in the classroom.

[@pooroldnostradamus]

@@beatoriche7301 So, really, it's just a matter of the ideal strategy being a mixture of everything, as usual.

[@Komatik_]

The trouble is, I've done that as a diversionary activity for years, and haven't learned much Japanese or Korean at all. Just learned *about* them.

[@frankharr9466]

I'm down with most of that. I would note that drill is helpful. I still remember when my favorite poem was: Ich bin Du bist Er sie es ist. Wir sind Ihr seid Sie Sie Sie sind. I like the grammar stuff, but I'm a nerd for that. I didn't get as much out of modern techniques as I could have because I was comming along just as they were being introduced and I didn't really buy into it for too long. And I fully agree that the opportunity to use what it is you're learning to make stuff is a big help in getting into the mindset. I wrote other poems then just that.

[@rdm3990]

Very insightful video. It made me consider a different approach to my learning of Latin. gratias magnas tibi ago, Lucii!

Great video, thank you! I am a fan of the comprehensible input method, or specifically LLPSI for me, but I sometimes stumble upon grammatical concepts/features, that LLPSI teaches me how to form and use, but not necessarily when to use them (instead of some other concepts), or why are they used. The last example for me was the sentence starting at line 200 of cap. XXIX: Tum mercātor, cum gubernātōrem pallidum videat, "Bonō animō es"! inquit, "Nōlī dēspērāre! Spēs est, dum anima est." I totally understood the meaning, but what I did not get was why is there the subjunctive *videat*, and not simple indicative *videt* or *vidēbat* or *vīdit*. At that time, at that point in the book, if I had to construct a similar sentence, I would definitely have used indicative, and not subjunctive. I then asked about it at the LLPSI discord, and someone explained to me, that when "cum" is used in the sense of indicating time, indicative is used, but when it is used rather to describe the circumstances while something else took place, where the time is not important, subjunctive is used then. After I got this quite explicit explanation, I started to notice the pattern very easily. Sure, it does not matter too much, when it comes to just reading, or understanding, I got the meaning just fine. But it is not helpful when one wants to compose something eventually. I feel like LLPSI does not always teach me *why* some "complicated" grammar concept is used instead of some simpler one with (seemingly) the same meaning. From about the middle of LLPSI, I started to peek ahead at the grammar section before starting the chapter just to get the idea of what I should pay attention to, and after finishing the chapter I sometimes looked the grammar up elsewhere, usually at multiple places, where it was explained more "traditionally", or more like rules. Do you have any tips/tricks/recipe/... to deal with this kind of problems?

[@sebastianschmidt3869]

Oh yes...I think it's important to learn the use of the subjunctive and the use of cum with the sunbjunctive. Once you know the rules all you have to do is read the texts multiple times until it becomes second nature. Familia Romana has a companion book written in English that explains the grammar of every chapter => "A Companion to Familia Romana" by Jeanne Marie Neumann.

[@Uthwita]

I wish there were channels that did this sort of thing for Old English.

[@polyMATHY_Luke]

That day is coming. It will be this channel, and likely ScorpioMartianus as well.

[@vampyricon7026]

​@@polyMATHY_Luke Oh boy, I can't wait!

[@userequaltoNull]

​@@vampyricon7026 But alas, we shall.

[@user-gr7jo9qb3l]

Thanks, studying classical Tibetan to read Buddhist texts. The language hasn't been updated since the 7th cent. It's completely different fr spoken Tibetan and I have no interest in learning small talk, kids vocab, kitchen Tibetan etc.

[@StephenHarrisJr]

@polyMATHY_Luke, regarding the whole comment about bookishness, I think it's quite telling that Stephen Krashen's findings really troubled him personally many years ago, because he LOVES grammar. It just turns out that it is not the deliberate study of grammar that produces language acquisition. The literature is very clear that students can be tested on explicit grammatical knowledge and pass with perfect scores, but then still make mistakes either in speaking or in writing as if they didn't know the rule at all. The fact that this phenomenon occurs at all is the whole reason that there is a subset of second language acquisition research devoted to the relationship between explicit and implicit language knowledge and the degree to which the boundary of those two things is permeable and, if so, in what way(s).

[@moacirbarbosacastro8923]

When you learn through input, you ``mimick`` the authors that you`ve read while producing the language writtenly or spokenly. So a student can write right grammatically speaking without knowning grammar or knowing the ins and outs of the language. In the end, this input thing will get you so far. But to trully get a deeper and real understanding of the language, one must learn the nuances through grammar (for structure) and dictionaries (for words).

[@dumupad3-da241]

Of course students need not only the deliberate study of grammar, but also a lot of practice and, yes, input. But they also can't achieve correct language use by input only. They need both deliberate study and input. Students relying on input only will also make mistakes in speaking and writing. And students also differ in the extent to which they manage to implement their theoretical knowledge in their actual practice; but just because some fail at that doesn't mean that there is no possible connection between theory and practice at all and that such implementation is impossible, as the Krashen dogma would have it. It's absurd that we are even talking about that. It's an obvious everyday fact of life that people can and do control their language use to a significant extent, they can learn rules and apply them - even about details of their native language that are dealt with prescriptively - and a huge amount of conversations about language are based on that very fact.

[@yourneighborkevin]

So, I wonder if the subject of this video is related to something that I have experienced in the business world. I can remember occasions where a person I was conducting business with in some capacity, but whose first language was not English, asked for someone whose speaks their native language. This may have been an individual I had spoken to many times on the phone or dealt with in person, and never had an issue with communicating about the matter in English, even in idiomatically dense conversation or in conversations regarding basic legal or contractual information. But when it came time to actually talk about the details of a contract or a legal document, let’s say a will or a lawsuit, they asked for someone that spoke their language. I never had an issue with this. I assumed that they did not want to run into any difficulties understanding the matter. And certainly within a contract or legal document the could be intricacies and nuances in the language that they felt compelled to understand in order to protect their interests. Now I had colleagues that would get quite frustrated by this request. These were not people that ever displayed any negativity about any hot-button topics, like immigration, that could indicate they might be triggered by the fact that the client was not from the US. However, after explaining why I thought the request was reasonable and why, they frequently did not seem to be able to relate or have any empathy for the client. They might say that they felt like the client didn’t trust them, or even worse, that somehow they had broken trust with them. From my perspective, this was just customer service. These clients may have been learning English in many different ways, but even though they showed strong proficiency in communicating in English, there were likely to be words and phrases in a legal document that carry weight differently in a legal document. I mean, even if they understand the word and can correctly define the word, do they actually understand how the word can affect their family or have secondary consequences? Are they fully grasping the word in this legal setting? Still, this was a frequent point of tension.

[@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh]

As someone who has studied many languages and who has been teaching languages for many years, I think that the biggest factor in learning is motivation. I think the 'comprehensive input' method works especially well for people who are motivated to learn, and who make an effort to understand. The main advantage, as far as I see it, to a more traditional approach (maybe not translation approach, but a more mechanical approach at least) is that it is less dependent on motivation. Learners that are not motivated might listen to someone speaking or read a text, and just get nothing out of it. They are not willing to draw conclusions, suss out patterns, or explore. But they are just as able as someone who is motivated when it comes to being asked to memorize a table of grammatical endings. A lot easier to command your students "memorize this table" than "listen to these recordings and read these texts and drawing on them and your practice with your partners master the present tense". For all of us who watch your channel, I assume motivation is not a big issue. But for someone teaching in a secondary school or university, motivation is (at least in my experience) rare.

[@Hraefngar]

I agree with your concerns about CI. It's definitely the best approach, provided students are willing to engage with the process which can often be a big ask.

[@dumupad3-da241]

I am not sure it's all that easy to make unmotivated students memorise a table of grammatical endings. More importantly, in the end, the patterns you 'suss out' via 'comprehensive input' will boil down to the same table of grammatical endings. The hope is that they at least memorise it better because of the way in which they have learnt it, but it is very time-consuming and I'm not sure the advantage is all that great to make it worth it. Of course you need to read texts, listen to recordings, practice with partners etc., but that is *in addition to* learning the table, not *instead of* doing it.

[@JasperSynth]

Jeong's "A Greek Reader" needs to be on your list of readers, and at the front. It's far easier than Athenaze for a beginner, the learning curve is not as steep, and the stories have plenty of repetition.

[@msinvincible2000]

Lol, the story of the lion and the gazelle! It reminds me of the sketch from Aldo Giovanni e Giacomo "il leone e la dazella" it's hilarieous, I strongly reccomend you Luke to watch it, if you haven't already. PS: I learned italian by simply watching TV, and I am fluent in it, I rarely make any mistake. The language came by itself, I didn't even touch a grammar book. However, english and french, I learned with books, and by forcing myself to memorize the words, and it was so much more difficult and long. Now I'm learning spanish, just by watching telenovelas. It's so awesome to let the language come to you instead of chasing it

[@CrispyCircuits]

Full immersion is definitely the best way. I took one Spanish class at University of Texas at Austin. I couldn't get into the second one. After quitting school (that didn't go well, I ran out of money needing two more classes to graduate), I was rather furious and frustrated. I met a Tejano (a Hispanic-American from Texas) at a flea market, got invited to his house to drink and party. They were very surprised when I went back a day or two later. I started to pick up Spanish from there. After meeting many Mexicans, having Hondurans and Mexicans as roommates and then working in all Spanish, partying in all Spanish and watching many Mexican novellas, I ended up with a great fluency. (I also studied the Bible with a group, reading passages out loud in Spanish). So I can think clearly in Spanish or English. I can also mix them and think alternating in both. I cannot translate at all. Too hard to think the thing twice and still feel uncertain if I got it right or not. When meeting certain people who are very bilingual, we can mix both even in single sentences, picking the words that work best for certain thoughts. That's a lot of fun, but not many people can do that. I am very bookish, but grammar tables don't really stick in my head for more than a brief period, despite the fact that I have excellent memory. Thanks for the very helpful videos and advice.

[@k05ma55ak311i5]

Hey there, Luke! I'm from Greece and a classics graduate. That method you speak of was never used when I was in highschool or the university. Note that in Greece Ancient Greek is a mandatory course throughout highschool. While I agree it's more effective with regards to learning a language, any language, and should be used in classics departments at universities, I don't think it's necessary when the goal is to simply give a taste of, and not actually teach, Ancient Greek to 12 and 16 year-olds. This question has been bugging me for years: should kids at school get a glimpse of the ancient languages or actually learn how to speak those languages?

[@letusplay2296]

As an autodidact using mostly input in my study of Persian and Japanese, one thing ive found is that massive input is indespensible in gaining an intuititive, native like comprehension of a language, but that accessing vocabulary when outputting, or using our L2s in an intelligent, idiomatic way is a somewhat separate skill that has to be cultivated on its own. For kyself I've been trying to pay cliser attention to HOW people speak or write in my L2 in order to speak better

[@markus-ks9sf]

I learned Japanese, an extremely hard language, in 5 years by learning each grammar point first, followed by input. I learned Latin input first but I knew how slow not memorizing the conjugation tables would be so I did that. I vote for grammar+input being the most efficient way to learn a language.

[@raederle9070]

Okay - I am unclear how a picture is better at providing comprensible input than a translation? Also what would you say to the effectiveness of an accurate translation of a word vs a limited, over-simplified definition in the target language? I learned much of my Latin from Familia Romana and it was indeed a lovely way to learn - but I have to say that I found the glosses frequently frustrating and in fact often simplistic to the point of inaccuracy. (And don't get me started on Roma Aeterna) I often looked them up - so easy these days. Of course, ideally one reads or listens or converses in the target language and thus builds up the nuance toward infinite latinitas. But I'm not convinced that one should at all costs avoid learning a word by mapping it to its native language equivalent. Is there research on that?

[@Hraefngar]

How would you motivate students in a classroom to approach a Latin text such as LLPSI from a CI standpoint and not rush to grammatical explanations or get frustrated with the process? Even students who haven't been brought up on a traditional grammar/translation approach still rush to the grammar or give up rather than taking the time to work through the language.

[@floretion]

I would say one of the main reasons you need "real, understandable input" is because acquiring a new languange is best done via (negative) feedback where you need to make actual mistakes and adjust yourself accordingly. In that light, translating from a native language to one studied will, in my opinion, contribute more to language proficiency than the other way around as there will be many more opportunities to make mistakes and get stumped. To me, if you can immediately write down a story of moderate complexity in a target language without too many external aids, you are very likely to be able to hold a normal conversation in the language (but NOT the other way around).

[@lucianoftyre]

As a Classics grad who studied Ancient Greek and Latin in university using the traditional way and who has been learning Irish for the last two years using the comprehensible input method, I can attest that so far the CI approach is effective and SUSTAINABLE. When I read interesting original sources, I am engaged. It does feel like it may take longer but the word retrieval feels faster and more natural. Little phrases are also starting to stick as if I were a real 2 year old learning his first language. I also don’t particularly care that this “indirect” method nay take awhile because I am having fun and learning about the culture reading original literature with English translation. It feels like for fluency there are no “shortcuts” so if I am gonna put the work in I may as well have fun. Now I still read my grammar books daily on a cycle. As I do, the rules start to make more sense because I begin to recall actual examples from my readings. It is a similar situation to native English speakers going to English grammar class. I suppose I am also doing translation when I do not immediately understand but I am trying to keep it light and focusing on keeping the pace. So I begin to recognize “future” “past” etc by patterns and seeing the same word or words like it. I typically write the original and then try to write a very rough English equivalent but its more like jotting. Then I will read it out and use hand motions to replace my English thoughts and just say “yep” at the end. For easier sentences with time the “English step” has disappeared. I just understand the meaning in the Irish. I guess my approach isn’t “pure CI” but for someone coming out of translating ancient Greek, it feels liberating!

[@andromilk2634]

Even with Familia Romana, I found the more I read chapters, the less comprehensible it became. At some point, I needed to rely on something (ex : dictionary) because the notes or other forms help were simply not evident enough.

[@Iliasmadmad]

6:20 the funny thing is, when us Greeks go to Italy and try to speak English they don't respond, but when we start speaking Greek they somehow learned English😂😅 Every person I know had the same experience🗿 (keep in mind in Greece almost all people know English and it's not uncommon to have a native English speaker for a teacher)

[@RobertAdamant]

14:43 was Boeing also a sponsor for this video?

[@purpledrakon1307]

This makes sense to me. When you learn english, you learn it and understand it, but occasionally have to ask what words mean in english. Other language acquisition is similar, intuit it until you inderstand the important concepts and the images asspciated with them, then use the language itself to expand the language. Like how you originially got the grammar from immersion in english, but the reason for that grammar was explained later on when you took english classes.

[@stanislawandreszabiega6756]

It is easier to learn a language or get better at it by having conversations with that language. We also need more dubbed movies in Latin.

[@stanislawandreszabiega6756]

I learned polish and Spanish when I was a kid by having conversations, watching movies, reading books , etc.

[@mendicius_jade]

Whatever you say but I personally experienced first hand the how 'comprehensible input' works. I studied Spanish since I was a teenager, through studying grammatical rules and some exposure here and there but to no avail. I came to the point where I have already known every rules by heart but couldn't even speak or understand the language proficiently. 4 years ago, someone taught me about comprehensible input and now I am between C1 to C2 in Spanish. I also tried it in German, albeit with 'little' dosage of grammar from time to time, and now I am approaching to B1 level. I am also trying it with Ancient Greek through Logos, and it does make miracles. Of course, I have to take a little dosage of glimpse to rules from time to time, but I focus more on exposing myself to a text and then analyzing the patterns and the context around an unknown vocabulary.

[@阳明子]

I wonder if an ancient Greek equivalent to LLPSI is even possible in principle. Germanic and Romance language speakers are able to immediately comprehend (much of) Chapter 1 of LLPSI. Even ignoring the script problem I can't imagine an ancient Greek paragraph that is immediately comprehensible to day 1 learners. It seems some CI videos (as Luke has made) or a vocabulary memorization routine is necessary before beginning to study ancient Greek through CI texts. What do y'all think?

[@YnEoS10]

People have already done it for Thai. Alpha with Angela already does this for Koine Greek, although the pronunciation isn't historical.

[@GaiusLibrietscientia]

Thanks for the answer. My english is not good but i can understand you. I'm from Brazil! Salve, Luke! Amo linguam latinam!

[@nicolamanenti8323]

In my experience, the general method used to teach Latin or Greek is completely different from the method used to teach a foreign language. Because the goal is different. The goal of learning Latin and Greek is to be able to read a text and understand it by translating it. The goal is not to be able to communicate in Latin or Greek. While learning a foreign language has the primary goal of communicating. You learn a foreign language because you want to be able to communicate in this language. Honestly, I don't like the communicative method because it neglects grammar too much. The communicative method works well with isolate languages like Chinese or English that don't rely too much on morphology to convey meaning. In English you learn words you put them together and 90% of time you have a correct sentence. But in other languages grammar is so important that becomes a fundamental aspect of the learning process. I taught Italian in a language school for migrants for 2 years using the communicative method. The results: they eventually can communicate but they still make a lot of silly grammar mistakes.

[@GordonA-Jr]

Not sure your over critique of Grammar translate is totally warranted, especially with Ancient languages. Specifically I’m thinking of Greek. I’m interested and trying to learn Koine Greek to read the New Testament. Both Classical and Koine Greek are no longer spoken and differ from Modern Greek. So how is there a better way to acquire Koine than the Grammar Translate method. The is uncertainty as what pronunciation to use and in the rare case I may bump into someone else who knows Greek I’m not sure it worth the effort in that area since my main goal is to read the text

[@L1ghTx]

We definitely need the Rainieri-Roberts approach for Latin next!

[@polyMATHY_Luke]

Soon!

[@kirilhristov9024]

I learned English just by watching TV, never opened a single English textbook.

[@polyMATHY_Luke]

A powerful example.

[@jpmontielr]

I learned enlgish reading videogame websites.

[@whothefluff]

I failed English all the way to college. And I was never even close to passing it lol. One day I saw a roommate watching something that grabbed my attention so I asked "yo what is that", to which he replied "adventure time, it's a new show". The problem was that it wasn't dubbed (or famous) yet so I had to watch it in the original English without subtitles, relying on the context and the few basic words I did learn from school. Before finishing the first season, something clicked; I started to understand almost all of it, and I've never again had any problems with the language. To this day, family and friends still react with raised eyebrows and doubtful looks when I tell them how I learned my first second language. EDIT: my accent is still god awful though, I never quite managed to sound like Antonio Banderas and get all the ladies

[@justaname1837]

Yes, I would learn grammar with comprehensible input. Learning how to make real sentences by reading interesting content is more effective than studying a grammar book.

[@alexartamonov2010]

English grammar is so primitive that can be learned in a week. Try learn Finnish with its 17 cases or any Slavic language (except Bulgarian that lost case system).

[@ancientromewithamy]

I was lucky to have a teacher, Dr. Psuty, who taught us Latin conversationally 30+ years ago. We also used Ecce Romani, a strength of those books, like LLPSI, was the illustrations next to the writing. The pictures were VERY helpful to me, there would be an image of girl reading, sitting under a tree, and you could figure out what "puella sub arbore leget et sedet" meant without relying on translations. People complaining about "made-up texts" annoyed me, because I think you'd find that Homer and Plato were "making up" what they were saying as well. Just splitting hairs, I know they mean "ancient" vs. "modern." But more texts and more repetition in more ways = better. As for listening/reading at the same time, I found this essential when learning French because of the ellisions and the silent letters, it was much harder to understand without seeing how it was written. I still watch documentaries and read books in French, I can't write or speak anymore though! While starting to learn Arabic recently, I've find it essential to hear and read, because of the lack of short vowels in most writing (I feel like the written language is giving me much less information than most other languages do!). Nevertheless, I run into people online who think grammar/translation is the only way to go. I disagree, but I think it's because that's the way they learned and they can't comprehend doing things any other way. I need to have grammar tables accessible to me when I need them, but I don't find it useful to try to memorize them immediately anymore. I've been accumulating some ancient Greek stuff but I've paused my Greek in favor of Arabic, I will look more into your videos on this matter in the future though!

[@billrogers5219]

My college roommate had studied Latin for 6 years, and passed the AP exam with top marks. One night I asked him what he was reading and what it said. Even after all those years of successful "grammar translation" study, he still had to puzzle the sentences out word by word. I thought that that was completely useless - why learn a language if reading is always going to be an exercise in cryptography? When I learned Portuguese, I did read a simple grammar text at the beginning, but it had lots of simple repetitive sentences to practice with, and after a few weeks I just started reading. It was before comprehensible input was a thing, so there were not a lot of simple things, so I just read tons of Jorge Amado novels. I only looked up words in a dictionary if not understanding them made it impossible to know what was going on in the story, everything else I got from context. After a year of that I could read portuguese pretty much as easily as English. That also approach worked for me in French, Spanish, Italian, Latin, and Ancient Greek. Lots and lots of reading of stuff that you find interesting and understandable will make you learn a language without feeling like it's a struggle.

[@cpnlsn88]

An aside: The work put into vocab speeds up reading, because you automatically perceive the words. Grammar stops you 'reading' because you spend time identifying grammatical features and that is not what reading is. If someone says to you "if I were you" you can understand this without knowing it is using the subjunctive mood. Most hearers and users of the phrase don't know it is in the subjunctive, don't know what the subjunctive is and yet still (somehow, goodness only knows how) understand the phrase. Key thing is reading is a different category than conscious "parsing". One is slow, laborious and cognitively demanding. The other is at speed. The more grammar you juggle in your head the slower and slower and more laborious it will be. It will then become too difficult and you'll give up.

[@polyMATHY_Luke]

That's an absolutely brilliant analysis.

[@deusexmaximum8930]

The most important part is having fun

[@liviaplauta]

The communicative method gets pushed mostly by native English speakers, but in its pure form it's exactly as inefficient as the traditional method. What it's very efficient at is keeping people paying to go to language school because they never progress. I learned English with the communicative method and it took me years and years, and if I hadn't put in considerable effort getting more input (reading) I would still be at the same level as most Italians. Grammar IS the structure of language and it needs to be learned. If it's not taught it will have to be inferred by the learner based on the input, which is what happens when you learn your native language. But the amount of input you get when learning your native language is immensely more than the amount you will ever get when learning another language, unless you are living in the country. So the point of teaching a language should be to make the learning process more efficient for the learner than it would be when just processing input on their own. This happens by teaching grammar and having a lot of exercises which use that grammar. The grammar exercises are an important part of the input, when combined with other types of input. The reason the traditional method doesn't work isn't the grammar, but the limited amount of input, that is of easily understandable texts or audio material. As a wild guess, I'd say you typically need about three times as much material as is normally found in a textbook. Of course some people will always reject grammar, maybe because they have traumas connected with learning it, or maybe because they just like more instinctual learning, but for every hater of grammar there is one person who really wants to learn the hows and whys of languages and who becomes anxious and frustrated when not provided with them.

[@haeilsey]

I tried to take a language class once where they never taught us concrete grammar and expected us to infer it, and gods was it frustrating to keep up with. lots of input is indeed very helpful (my french got much better after I left textbooks and started speaking and reading for real), but it's so important to have the basic ideas before you can really infer everything

[@sebastianschmidt3869]

How would you define the "communicative method"? I learned English in school through a mix of communication (the teacher speaks in English and the students respond in English - most of the time), reading + listening input and grammar instruction.

[@markus-ks9sf]

​@@sebastianschmidt3869Communicative method is just like it's taught in Lingua Latina Per Se Ilustrata. Cambrige Latin has a mix of both grammar and pure input. But its grammar somewhat light. Assimil has traces of an input based book but tends more towards grammar. Wheelock is the most notorious book for the translation method; but I've seen worse that are pure granmar and no samples.

[@sebastianschmidt3869]

Well...even LLPSI teaches some grammar (in Latin). I thought she meant an approach where the teacher speaks in the target language only and makes things comprehensible through drawings and gestures.

[@pml8256]

¡Tienes toda la razón te apoyo!

[@jonasjahn1613]

What are some of the traditional Latin "grammar translation text books" being mentioned at the beginning of the video (that can explain grammar in the context of original sentences of classical Latin works)? Could anyone give me an example of what that is?

[@SepulvedaBoulevard]

My Mandarin teacher told me the traditional method of memorizing the 300 Tang dynasty poems, and today I memorize Psalms in Hebrew. Amazing how quickly patterns emerge and understanding develops!

[@Andres-mk8li]

Which is the method of memorizing that you teacher told you?

[@giulioborja1100]

My question now is: why does the grammar translation method exist? When did it replace the ancient way of teaching languages that was mostly based on the natural one?

[@brawndo1255]

after four years of ancient greek and latin i could get As on all my translation tests but barely read. what is taught is basically puzzle solving more than any kind of language. the only thing that worked for me was picking an author and reading a ton of them, throwing the grammar books away, and going to a dictionary only when absolutely necessary.

[@mus.sejati]

I learn latin in Orthodox Seminary in Russia now. At class i lean latin with traditional method, but outside the class i learn latin with language acquisition's method. Both methods work for me, because i like grammatical study. Language acquisition is also working for me to know latin context more deeply.

[@muskyoxes]

The problem with comprehensible input is that you have to magically be at upper intermediate level before you can start to use the method

[@polyMATHY_Luke]

That is true for most texts from antiquity, that is true. This is why the graded readers I mentioned are so important.

[@muskyoxes]

@@polyMATHY_Luke Graded readers start way too advanced, as i think you even indicated in this video. A third grade reading level for a native is a gigantic amount of work for a learner to get there

[@polyMATHY_Luke]

Very good point. This is why I made the recommendations I did in the Ranieri-Roberts Approach video.

[@AmyThePuddytat]

I agree that the grammar-translation method generally doesn’t work well, even for bookish types. However, people vary in their learning styles, and some people are extreme outliers. I have taught languages for many years and realised that a huge amount of input is necessary and even quite clever people get confused by rules. However, it is still the case that for me personally, it’s boring to be exposed to a lot of stuff when all I really want and need to do is memorise all the interesting rules of grammar and phonology first. I can look at a paradigm and know it for ever, hauling it up to my mind’s eye in the middle of speaking a sentence in order to put the right ending on. I spontaneously think in terms of a Chomsky-style transformational-generative grammar tree. I taught myself Italian from a textbook and a cassette tape for one year when I was 16, until I could recite the dialogues in it from memory. I then didn’t think about the language till I went to Milan at 23, where I was able to live my life speaking only Italian. After a few months of comprehensible input from daily life that boosted my fluency, vocab and confidence, I started working as a translator. Italians often take me for a native speaker. My brain isn’t normal.

[@Ded_Silu]

18:51 Just because a native-speaker can immediately understand the spoken native language, he/she may or may not be able to read in that language. It may be that a foreign language is his/ her most dominant written language.

[@NiveusCornix]

I am surprised @polyMATHY_Luke didn’t reference his Ranieri-Dowling Method in this video. Because that utilizes the “traditional” method but of course it is also comprehensible input based.

[@GrantCelley]

So I had an interesting talk with a woman at work. She is from Rwanda. She is going to see Romeo and Juliet this weekend. She knows like 5 languages. She was talking about a song that has Romeo and Juliet in it. She had to recite the song to translate it. It was interesting. Sometimes we talk in french. She understands English great probably at a C1 level maybe C2. But Translating between the languages takes a lot of time. Its just really interesting.

[@ariebrons7976]

Dear Mr. Rainiery, After trying Ephemeras for a while, and haveing my friend read it. Struggled to understand it, saying it is like Google Translate. I quit the method out of fear of getting used to my wrong grammar. ~and getting stuck later~

[@dougjardine8545]

Precisely! COMPREHENSIBLE input. I hate having to guess at a passage and then have the uncertainty about what I have guessed. Will I have to "erase" my mistaken first guess? I'm viscerally repulsed at the prospect!

[@bql3]

i found this video as a great “signs you’re on the right track” message 🙂

[@Xardas131]

Most teachers that say grammar can be harmful for language learning have no or little knowledge about the grammar and say it mostly because they don't understand it properly. But I know that you are an expert on the whole matter (speaking, grammar, reading) and I can understand now why there are solid reasons against extreme grammar learning. Thank you!

[@AEARArg]

No. There is scientific evidence on the merits of input based versus grammar based learning.

[@jextra1313]

"If teachers don't use my favourite method, they aren't educated enough" is such a hauty statement. Grammar never helped me learn my native language, all it did was name things I already understood. Input was always the catalyst for understanding. Grammar is good for the academic study of language, not learning. You don't have to name all the parts of a bicycle to be a world champion cyclist.

[@Xardas131]

@@jextra1313 I said nothing like this. I just said, many teachers don't want to hear about grammar because they don't understand it at all. Luke of course understands both and has therefore far better judgement on the matter.

[@Edits_Panic0]

​@@jextra1313 That's true. I can communicate in my native language but I don't know shit about it's grammar. 😂

[@unknown-otter]

​@@Edits_Panic0absolutely the same! And yeah, I'm Russian with all those spooky cases and conjugations. I've been ill when we learned about conjugations in the class and I to this day don't know shit about them! And the opposite: in my uni English classes (I'm not a linguist though, god forbid) I've met a few of classmates that had great understating of grammar rules (knew all conditions by heart where what tense should be, when to use each, etc) but still couldn't really express themselves in the language. I still think their comprehension was generally okay, so maybe they were just a little shy speaking for some reason, idk!

[@ridleyroid9060]

Just when I am getting back to trying to learn my 3rd language (Japanese), you come out with this vid lol. Now I'm gonna learn I been doing it all wrong.

[@personifiedmarvel]

I don't totally understand the idea of comprehensible input. Let's say I want to learn a language with no reader books. Where do I start?

[@dumupad3-da241]

Thank you for bothering to react to my comment at such length. I have just noticed this, about four months later. Here is my second round of objections. I’m sorry that I haven’t replied in the exact same order and haven’t linked to the places where you say the things I am reacting to. 1. If you are right that you can’t learn by grammar-translation, then nobody has learnt any ancient language in the last two hundred years, because almost every person who currently 'knows' an ancient language, including experts, has learnt it through the method that you so vehemently argue against. As you mentioned, something close to it has long been quite prominent in the teaching of *modern* languages, too, so by your logic, hardly anyone during the 20th century has learnt a modern language either (without actually living in the country and being fully immersed in it). I, too, have learnt several *modern* languages to a large extent through grammar-translation and through conceptualising rules, but of course, not *only* through them, so their role is harder to prove there. Still, I am fairly convinced that I could have never done without that. You are basically saying that most of what I have been doing to learn a language has been wrong all along and that I have been learning languages the wrong way. Well, since I already have, in fact, learnt several languages quite successfully and at a fairly good level by most accounts, and others at least to some useful extent, and I have been continuously improving my command of them precisely by conceptualising rules, I cannot be convinced by your claim. 2. Much of your argument is similar to arguing against having a foundation for your house because you will eventually need a roof, carpets and furniture, too; or that you don’t need a right leg because you also need the left one, or perhaps the right one is actually outright harmful! Yes, you can't *just* translate, you can't *just* know theoretical rules without getting input and practicing communication (spoken or written), you can’t *just* memorise words as equivalents of the words of your own native language, rules are simplifications and have real exceptions or apparent exceptions that are due to the rules not having been explained in sufficient detail. But these are (some of) the things you *start* with; *subsequently* or *in addition* to that you refine your knowledge, develop automatic habits, get used to the exceptions, etc. You (and Krashen) are speaking as if fluent and automatised language use were a separate and different path compared to the use of rules, whereas I’d argue that the use of rules is actually a stepping stone that you build upon in order to reach fluency. First you learn the language non-fluently, then with practice it eventually does get fluent and automatic. The simplest way for the input to be ‘comprehensible’ is precisely to be consciously informed about the meaning of the words and the way the grammar works. You (and Krashen) seem to be even expressing the more extreme and intolerant position that using rules and translation somehow forever ‘taints’ your competence in a language and precludes developing fluency, which is just incompatible with the actual results achieved by many people. You also say that our expectations based on rules sometimes won’t be met; yes, but it’s important that they will be met most of the time, and eventually, with refinement, almost all the time. In fact, it is a crucial part of competence in any language to have such expectations, conscious or not. And no, textbook-style descriptive rules are not the equivalent of learning the physics of a bike. Theoretical linguistics may be like this, but textbook-style rules are like instructions how to ride a bike, or rather a car, or how to use a computer. You are explicitly told which buttons do what. What you are basically arguing against is any kind of instructions and conscious understanding - we are supposed to just push the buttons without thinking from the start and gradually find out, or rather get a feel for, what they do. I don’t know about bikes, but I doubt that you can get a driver’s licence anywhere with this approach. You're using that scary-looking generativist diagram to argue that since the full rules are too complicated to get our heads around, we might as well not learn *any* rules. This is not a reasonable conclusion. Not everyone finds generativism so hard, but even assuming it is, and even assuming that generativist descriptions of language are the correct ones - and we don't actually know that - rules don't need to describe the exact mechanism of language quite accurately in order to be useful, they just need to work most of the time. Saying that the dative expresses the indirect object or that it takes this or that ending is a generalisation, just like saying that 'mensa' means 'table' is a generalisation. Later the learner will find out many subgeneralisations, sub-sub-generalisations etc. You allow at least pointing at a table, but you won't allow saying anything about the dative, because that would be a rule, and learning anything consciously is anathema for Krashen's dogma. This reduces people to animals incapable of reasoning and basically learning by classical and operant conditioning. 3. The reason some textbooks in Latin and Greek can afford to teach without giving explanations in advance is because the people coming to them tend to already know the grammatical concepts and many of the individual words. 'Roma in Italia est', come on. This is a cheap trick. Doing this with a truly unfamiliar and typologically ‘exotic’ language is much harder. 4. Pictures can be interpreted in different ways depending on your native language and culture; you still equate them with your native concept and with your native word, so you aren’t really avoiding the lens of your native language by means of pictures. Even your example with the actual knocking on an actual door in the classroom just leads to the equation with the words ‘door’ and ‘knock’. At best, it’s a more vivid and perhaps memorable, but also too space-and time-consuming way of learning vocabulary. It’s impossible to understand the subtleties of the use of alien words and concepts just by specific examples either - you can still draw the wrong conclusion from the examples. Just being shown one instance of an object does not tell you which other objects are named with the same word - you still have to make a generalisation, it will still be partly wrong, and you will make it based on your native language. It's just that your generalisation will likely be *more* wrong than if you are just told what the (approximately) correct generalisation from the examples is. 5. While you reject all conscious learning of rules in some parts of the video, in others you seem to condone it as long as it is in the target language. Of course, these two positions are incompatible - if conscious learning is like ‘building a bike’, then it should be useless regardless of the language it is conducted in. That said, the idea that a complex and alien grammatical point or meaning of a word can be learnt via explanations in a language you don’t yet understand well is extremely unreasonable. The very concepts you need to explain these things are learnt at a much higher level of competence in the language than the level at which you need to use the relevant rules. I’m only allowed to learn the principle of ergativity once I’ve learnt enough Greenlandic to understand an explanation of it *in* Greenlandic - or ditto for Sumerian, however that might look? Please. 6. You claim the research results are in and they are on your side. Looking at other sources doesn’t seem to confirm this. The use of translation and grammatical explanations has been vindicated to greater or lesser extents by different authors in recent decades, and the original idea of their uselessness, like numerous other radical pedagogical ideas proposed during the last 150 years, does not seem to have been based on tons of hard data. I am glad that Krashen's ideas and the like, while popular in the theoretical literature, have never been consistently adopted in most language teaching and common sense has prevailed in practice. Again, *of course* communicative practice is important, too, but banishing everything else as unnecessary or harmful is just fanatical extremism. 7. Finally, I don’t think that you are consistently practicing what you are preaching. You have made numerous videos explaining in English, in theory, via rules and generalisations, how Latin (especially Latin pronunciation) works. You have been appealing to the brain and to the rational, conscious part of us viewers, all the while you are preaching an anti-rationalistic, intuitive approach in a rather extreme form. IMO, the reason why you aren’t really sticking to this approach is that is impracticable.

[@Laocoon283]

I spent one year working through Mastonarde's intro to greek grammar and then jumped straight into Anabasis, which is essentially a graded reader despite being a primary source, and I could see how much I would have missed out on without explicit intruction on how cases and syntax and moods and conjugation worked. It's the difference between reading in black and white vs in color. I don't understand how anyone would be able to just intuitively understand the difference between middle, deponent, and passive when they can all look and sound identical. It's like reading with a handicap. Why not just explain how these things work explicitly upfront? Makes no sense.

[@Laocoon283]

16:50 I think this is the main difference between dead languages and modern languages. Most people learning dead languages only want the skill to read and they aren't interested in speaking or writing the language because... well because they are dead languages lol. I think this is why the grammar translation method is such a hold out in the classics because it's more suited to the purpose. Whereas comprehensive input is more suited to modern languages because there's more of a focus on back and forth communication whereas that's superfluous to greek and latin.

[@QuintusEuander]

What is the evidence for CI working better than other methods for language acquisition. You said that such and such guy had a theory. But what actual data is there? I would very much appreciate it, if you presented some data, because if I want to convince other ancient language people of the method, I need actual data to be on my side.

[@Glossologia]

There's a lot of relevant research beyong the obvious Krashen, though a lot of it is topic specific. For instance, from the 2020 edition of An Introduction to Applied Linguistics: In L2 reading, Hedgcock and Ferris (2018), Suk (2017) and Yamashita (2015) provide extended overviews of a numberof more recent studies that have investigated the impact of extensive reading on second language reading (directly and indirectly). What seems clear from the reviewed research is that second or foreign language readers at various ages and proficiency levels can benefit from extensive reading. Elley (2000) described multiple large scale training studies of book-flood and extensive reading programs. In these studies, he has shown that getting students to read extensively over a long period of time consistently improved reading comprehension abilities aswell as a numberofother language skills. In a recent well-controlled and well-designed study, Suk (2017) also provides strong evidence that extensive reading can be a powerful support for reading and vocabulary development. The theoretical explanation for the effectiveness of extensive reading by Suk (2017) is that reading extensively provides large amounts of comprehensible input and promotes implicit language learning as a support for reading goals. Look also into the extensive reading foundation for a lot more material.

[@QuintusEuander]

​@@Glossologia Well thanks a lot, this is just the information I wanted!

[@Komatik_]

I'm a walking example. My native language is completely unrelated to English, but I acquired it by watching TV, playing videogames and talking about them on online forums. All school classes in English were a cakewalk because I was so far ahead of the level they targeted. I have a passable level in Swedish from school classes - they do work, though the classes themselves took a "language bath" philosophy and were conducted increadingly in Swedish, and in the end almost entirely in it. I can think in Swedish without issue, but my grasp of Swedish idiom's rotted away from disuse and my active vocabulary's shite, as the Brits would say.

[@dumupad3-da241]

@@Glossologia All of this proves extensive reading is good (wow, who would have thunk that extensive reading would lead to better reading skills?), not that teaching grammar and translating is bad. Nobody has ever been against extensive reading, this is an absurd strawman/bogeyman. These things complement one another, they don't exclude one another. You use your knowledge of grammar to understand what you read, and you use your experience from reading to translate. But reading extensively is impossible before you have a decent grasp of the grammar.

[@richardditty5318]

Repetition is key to learning a language. I have 5 children, and over the years I've been paying attention to how they've acquired English. It's really just been as basic as repeating simple words and phrases to them endlessly until they get it, especially when they're really young. They learn language even faster when they have other children to play with because they receive constant input that's interactive, and it makes it easier for them to associate verbs with actions.

[@williamarthur4801]

Really interesting, I'm nearly 60 and still can't speak French, but I can read it, in my 20's I went 3 years without reading a book or magazine in English, got through a lot of Asterix.

[@jonsmith20766]

You have some Gaul to recommend that!